Messages in this thread | | | From | Len Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] i386 IOAPIC: de-fang IRQ compression | Date | Thu, 6 Dec 2007 21:41:04 -0500 |
| |
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 04:48, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:26:49 +0100 > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > > * Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > So while the irq compression code on i386 should really > > > > be deleted -- even before merging the x86_64 irq-overhaul, > > > > this patch simply disables it on all high volume systems > > > > to avoid problems #1 and #2 on most all i386 systems. > > > > > > > > A large system with pin numbers >=64 will still have compression > > > > to conserve limited IRQ numbers for sparse IOAPICS. However, > > > > the vast majority of the planet, those with only pin numbers < 64 > > > > will use an identity GSI -> IRQ mapping. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> > > > > > > thanks for the patch and the extensive description. I've applied this to > > > x86.git. > > > > Len applied it to his tree too. > > Len, i think this belongs into x86.git a bit more (especially with the > unification activities going on all around the tree) - do you agree? > Andrew, i'd suggest to apply a reverted patch to between git.acpi and > git.x86 until this gets sorted out.
Sure. I'm re-basing my test branch right now and can exclude this one since it is in x86.git. (and yes, I'm interested in unifying mpparse_*.c some day)
yes, your understanding is correct -- this is not urgent 2.6.24 material, it is just a 'regular patch':-)
Re: making the VIA part into dead-code I had avoided that originally because I was going to nominate this patch for the highest check-in-comment length/code-change ratio But once I went over 1 line I blew the budget;-)
Eric, What do you suggest we do with NR_IRQS on i386 so that we can delete the compression code entirely?
thanks, -Len
| |